1. Identifying Potential Classification Criteria for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Item Generation and Item Reduction.
- Author
-
Tedeschi, Sara, Pascart, Tristan, Latourte, Augustin, Godsave, Cattleya, Kundakci, Burak, Naden, Raymond, Taylor, William, Dalbeth, Nicola, Neogi, Tuhina, Perez-Ruiz, Fernando, Rosenthal, Ann, Becce, Fabio, Pascual, Eliseo, Andres, Mariano, Bardin, Thomas, Doherty, Michael, Ea, Hang-Korng, Filippou, Georgios, Guitierrez, Marwin, Iagnocco, Annamaria, Jansen, Tim, Kohler, Minna, Lioté, Frédéric, Matza, Mark, McCarthy, Geraldine, Ramonda, Roberta, Reginato, Anthony, Richette, Pascal, Singh, Jasvinder, Sivera, Francisca, So, Alexander, Stamp, Lisa, Yinh, Janeth, Yokose, Chio, Choi, Hyon, Abhishek, Abhishek, Terkeltaub, Robert, and FitzGerald, John
- Subjects
Calcium Pyrophosphate ,Chondrocalcinosis ,Crystal Arthropathies ,Humans ,Knee Joint ,Wrist Joint - Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. Our objective was to report on the first 2 phases of a 4-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria. METHODS: CPPD classification criteria development is overseen by a 12-member steering committee. Item generation (phase I) included a scoping literature review of 5 literature databases and contributions from a 35-member combined expert committee and 2 patient research partners. Item reduction and refinement (phase II) involved a combined expert committee meeting, discussions among clinical, imaging, and laboratory advisory groups, and an item-rating exercise to assess the influence of individual items toward classification. The steering committee reviewed the modal rating score for each item (range -3 [strongly pushes away from CPPD] to +3 [strongly pushes toward CPPD]) to determine items to retain for future phases of criteria development. RESULTS: Item generation yielded 420 items (312 from the literature, 108 from experts/patients). The advisory groups eliminated items that they agreed were unlikely to distinguish between CPPD and other forms of arthritis, yielding 127 items for the item-rating exercise. Fifty-six items, most of which had a modal rating of +/- 2 or 3, were retained for future phases. As numerous imaging items were rated +3, the steering committee recommended focusing on imaging of the knee and wrist and 1 additional affected joint for calcification suggestive of CPP crystal deposition. CONCLUSION: A data- and expert-driven process is underway to develop CPPD classification criteria. Candidate items comprise clinical, imaging, and laboratory features.
- Published
- 2022